Posted
by
samzenpus
on Sunday July 13, 2014 @01:51PM
from the for-our-eyes-only dept.

AHuxley (892839) writes "The Desk reports on a FOIA request covering "... all e-mails sent by Edward Snowden" and the NSA's refusal to release all documents. "The National Security Agency has acknowledged it retains a record of e-mail communications from former contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden, but says those records are exempt from public disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act. In a letter responding to a June 27 FOIA request from The Desk, the NSA’s chief FOIA officer Pamela Phillips wrote that while the agency has retained records related to Snowden’s employment as a contractor, they are being withheld from public examination because, among other things, releasing the records 'could interfere with law enforcement proceedings, could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reveal the identities of confidential sources or would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures.' Other records are being withheld because those documents were 'also found to be currently and properly classifiedand remains classified TOP SECRET, SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL.' The letter marks the first time the NSA has publicly acknowledged retaining communication and employment records related to Snowden’s time as a contractor."

America no longer has distributed agriculture or fuel production. A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters, I'd wager.

America no longer has distributed agriculture or fuel production. A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters, I'd wager.

And yet, in Thomas Jefferson's view, would be well worth the cost, and is far more than an order of magnitude (in years) overdue.

Delusional? The NSA is violating people's rights and the highest law of the land, and it's happening right this instant. Are you saying that it is not happening? If not, then how is he delusional? If you allow it to happen, and they continue doing it, then you don't really have those freedoms, now do you?

A federal judge has ruled the mass (meta)data collection activities of the NSA to be unconstitutional. The RNC has pushed for legislation to explicitly declare it so. The more disturbing point here is that the Constitution, which explicitly defines limits to the powers of government, existed long before the NSA. It has simply been ignored, and entirely too many people seem to be ignorant of this fact or simply don't care. Given the protections afforded in the Constitution, I challenge you to justify the legality of massive collection of private information on United States citizens by government agents without warrant or due process.

You won't ever accept any argument I put forth, including ones about the spirit of the constitution, because you mindlessly appeal to authority to get all the answers, even though authority can and has been wrong countless times. I bet you'd even accept it if the Supreme Court suddenly ruled that the first amendment doesn't protect political speech. You're a drone with no mind of his own.

In the end, it's up to the people to make sure the government follows the constitution. Judges and politicians can

What's truly sad to me is the fact that you and I have agreed on so many things in the past. It's sad because I am in vehement opposition to your views in this discussion. I must ask you a simple question: what do you presently do for a living, and what have you done in the past? Thank you.

I care more about my children's survival than Thomas Jefferson cared about my kids' survival.

I agree with the other person who replied. In effect, you are saying "I don't care who ELSE is made to be slaves, as long as I and my family can hide in this safe little cave and pretend it doesn't exist."

Part of the problem, indeed. You would "protect" your children by leaving them a life of servitude to others.

Fully agreed. As a father of three children, I've been decidedly unhappy about the way things have been heading for a long time now. My first inclination is to simply leave, taking my loved ones with me. In fact, that's the current plan, although I have a habit of making lots of noise about Constitutional rights on a daily basis, and I may well get myself into trouble because of it. Should that happen, so be it. I may be on the way out, but I'm not backing down while I'm still here.

To clarify my last response, I once wore a uniform for this nation and swore an oath uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have no interest in staying in a nation full of people who are completely ignorant of their rights and obligations as citizens, a nation where the majority of the population is far too apathetic to care about those rights being trampled. I'll be here as long as it takes to build a solid foundation elsewhere, which is a work in progress, and I'm gone after that. I'm a fairly smart guy, and I have fairly diverse skills that I can utilize anywhere on the planet to provide for my loved ones. There are still a few places left where people care about individualism and rights. Not many, but a few.

I don't think they care about violating rights of the U.S. citizens. And they care even less about those outside the U.S. It's too bad that the American allies don't care about their citizens' privacy either.

in the US, people's rights are generally specific to government interferenceor actions. frinstance govt can't curtail freedom of speech, but private entities are free to do so on their properties, radio waves, etc.

Since you want to limit this to the intent of the Founders, could you quote the section of the US Constitution that establishes the right to privacy?

If the constitution does not say that the government has the power to do something, then it doesn't. Furthermore, the 4th amendment places limitations upon the government that may have been necessary due to earlier sections of the constitution. The limitations placed on the government's powers enable a greater degree of privacy to exist. The right to privacy is the default, and it is also implicit.

General warrants are unconstitutional. Further, it's plainly obvious that this practice would have been explici

Imagine you go back in time, and you ask Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and friends whether it would be OK if the government was keeping a record of who sent every letter and who they sent it to. Just to protect us, obviously.

Just imagine that for a moment.

Then tell us, with all seriousness, that you really, actually, imagine they would say 'yeah, sure, that's fine, and totally Constitutinal'.

You seem to have forgotten that the NSA were doing a damn sight more than just gathering phone metadata. That's the only thing the US government is willing to discuss with a US agency even when the head of that agency perjured himself to the US government in a public hearing under oath. Metadata, metadata, that's now just a pretend catch cry to make it look like the government is doing something about an out of control agency.

They were intercepting everything thing they could, internet communications, em

How is that not a good argument? Imagining what the founding fathers would have done in response to X, and taking into account some history and similar events, is a very good way to try to get a grasp on the spirit of the constitution. What do you suggest, ignoring the spirit of the constitution and just letting the government do as it pleases because "times have changed"? What does that even mean?

could you quote the section of the US Constitution that establishes the right to privacy?

OK, this ring a bell? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The NSA is, at this very moment, violating the constitution and people's rights by conducting mass surveillance on almost everyone. In what way is pointing this out and saying it is a bad thing in any way silly?

We're supposed to be 'the land of the free.' Our constitution only gives the government limited powers. Why is that? Because governments can't be trusted, and authority will be abused. We have to be cautious of the powers the government actually does have, let alone the ones that it just takes for it

Oh, you naïve person, you. Don't you know that your privacy rights aren't violated as long as you never know your personal data was being scraped and stored? It's the disclosure that is the privacy violation.

Besides, the data is only "collected" when someone looks at it. It's basically Schrödinger's database.

"NSA Says Snowden Emails Exempt From Public Disclosure "NSA says a lot of shit and you can't believe a fucking word of it, but, then, you can't believe a fucking word the Politicians, that make the NSA possible, say either.Go figure.

That image is my original artwork (with friendly tips from Slashdot user Indigo), copyright 2014 Robert Bushman, licensed under CC by-nc-sa. It is properly sized for a 2.75" by 5" sticker with.125" bleed at 300 dpi. I'm getting them printed at psprint.com (I recommend doing a search for "vinyl bumper stickers", since they often have a coupon running on Duck Duck Go). I haven't seen my physical proofs yet, but the on-screen color conversion looked good to me. Please feel free to print a stack and spread them far and wide.

That's a big part of the reason I went with Binney instead of Doctorow (my original choice); to make you, and others like you, wonder, "Who is Binney?" Hopefully most of the rest will realize they can type "binney" into a search engine.:)

"James Jeffrey Binney, FRS, FInstP (born 1950 in Surrey) is a British astrophysicist. He is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, where he is head of the Sub-Department of Theoretical Physics as well as a Professorial Fellow at Merton College. Binney is known principally for his work in theoretical galactic and extragalactic astrophysics, but he has made a number of contributions to areas outside of astrophysics as well."

Sometimes people say, of Snowden, "He should have gone through official channels."

In 2001, William Binney did exactly that. Ever since then, Binney had been harrassed and prosecuted by the government, and marginalized and ignored by the media -- until Snowden embarrassed the major media with the help of Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian. Binney (and Drake before him) is why Snowden was right not to go through official channels; that method had been tested and found to fail.

Except Snowden is 31 and you must be 35 to meet the candidacy requirement for POTUS.

It also helps to be able to set foot on US soil without being arrested. Not a constitutional requirement, per se, but a fairly important practical one. Otherwise even if you win you have to figure out how to sneak into the country and your own inauguration so you can get sworn in -- and acquire the ability to pardon yourself -- before being body slammed to the ground, thrown into the back of a black Suburban and transported to Gitmo for waterboarding.

At this point, there are numerous things happening such as laws, inquiries, public debate, and policy changes that are all due to Snowden's release of information. I feel that he has brought to the forefront an important issue and revealed things that the public needed to know. I can understand to some degree that people don't like how he did it, but given the machine that is the government, I don't doubt that this was the only way to bring about such changes (or at least debate and knowledge).

After a bit of a cool down period, I don't hear nearly as much hate for Snowden. Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and all other flavors should want a more open government. The government does also need to keep some things secret. This gives them a reason, the means, and a public grant of power to keep things from public knowledge. Some times the only way to circumvent that power is through a leak/whistle blower.

As far as this story, the public needs to pressure the government to keep no more secrets about Snowden. The cover of endangering certain sources or resources is no longer being accepted as we have seen little damage and much good from the release. It's time the US Government come clean and it's time we tell them that we demand it.

They see any kind of "restriction" on government's ability to secure "advantage" and "interest" as allowing "The terrorists to win" (or whatever is the current buzz phrase), As such, they view actions like snowden's as being completely un-american, because he undermined the interests of an american intelligence agency, who was collecting abhorrent amounts of information about everyone and everything--presumably to secure american interests, over foriegn interests. These are the same kinds of people that would support creation of a literal planet-killing super weapon, just to secure american military dominance, and would think nothing of it.

People that chug the jingo-laid come in all colors, all races, all creeds, and all genders: Liberal, Libertarian, Fiscal conservative, raging pinko, and gun toting whacko alike. The unifying feature is that they have bought into the "America is NUMBER ONE!!!!eleveltyone!" mantra.

Seeing that supporting "American interests" without question or hesitation is leading to somethig that is not the america they were promised, with real proof, and real scnadals, with real consequences (FOR THEM), is about the only way to get through to them, short of having them experience the stazi first hand, up close and brutal.

The bullshit needs to stop, and an anti-jingoism movement needs to sweep this country.

It has been my observation that the people who have blistering hatred for Snowden, are the kinds of people who totally embrace jingoism.

But there are also those who don't have a blistering hatred, yet still feel that he broke the law and should be accountable. I find these people to be especially common among those who themselves are or have been under legal and moral obligations to preserve US government secrets and are appalled that Snowden essentially dumped a huge pile of unsifted sensitive data on the Guardian and trusted them to keep it secure and behave responsibly.

I dont hate america. I hate what america has become, and where it is going. America is no longer a place of ideals. It no longer is a place where liberty and freedom are real things, bought and paid for with blood.

America today is a place where you work more than 9 hours a day, every day if possible, with more than half the population either in jail, or having previously been in jail, where you live in inescapable debt to a tiny fraction of the population-- who makes all the rules, a

America is no longer a place of ideals. It no longer is a place where liberty and freedom are real things, bought and paid for with blood.

It never was. We had slavery, internment camps, discrimination, and at *any* point in our history (including the cold war), people's freedoms and the constitution were being violated in exchange for 'safety' of some kind. There are still too many problems to fix before we'll ever be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.'

That wouldn't matter. The government would simply claim any messages they don't like the content of were falsified. We could ask them to release their copies then, but they could similarly release doctored emails. The end result would be a classic case of he said/she said.

Except, one of the two has been shown to be a liar. The NSA can refuse as they please so long as they have money from Congress and guns from other federal agencies to back them up. However, I seriously doubt that they could get an evidentially unsupported assertion to hold up in public court.

Good point. I think what it comes down to is understanding how to structure a group of people so that the group, acting as a whole, is capable of prioritizing moral behavior over it's own interests. Most large organizations seem to have the same concept of morality as single celled organisms.

In practice, I would expect that to only work in not-for-profit organizations.

But I've gradually come to the conclusion that the reason most of the world's problems aren't solved already is because due to the nature of humans they can't be. Too many systems revolve around people acting ethically and when there's money involved it just doesn't work. And there's always money involved somehow.

Well the government has made one thing very clear. They believe that they are the only beings on earth that are entitled to privacy or secrecy, and they are entitled to ALL of it while simultaneously violating everyone else's eight ways till friday.

Isn't it... "odd"... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels? Now I wonder why that might be?

You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?

No. He already said why. He didn't take anything with him beyond Hong Kong and there is no reason tothink he could have had the foresight to take the emails at the time he took the other documents. The fact we're attacking him over what is trivial compared to the crimes he's brought us should send up a red flag. They are distracting us and the administration, prior administration, and at least some of those in congress amongst others should be charged with treason and in prison. Unfortunately our system doe

Isn't it... "odd"... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels?

a) Because when I suspect my employer of illegal wrong doing doing I always write an email? Oh, wait, no, we're trained that those sorts of inquiries are supposed to go through channels without permanent records for legal liability reasons. You can argue that that's a bad thing, but that's reality in a LOT of places.

b) While I'm sure he'd have been capable of snagging his email, maybe it simply didn't occur to him.

You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?

If your argument is that Snowden didn't keep and release them because they would contradict and harm his 'narrative', then why is the NSA not bending over backwards to get them out there?

The NSA should be happy to provide us with such a relevant record that details their dutiful adherence to the law, and how they conscientiously explained to Snowden why he was mistaken in raising concerns.

If you really beleive what you wrote, why do think the NSA is refusing to release them?

And if you really believe what what the NSA was doing was legal, how do you reconcile that with the general consensus that a great deal of what they were doing was not, in fact, legal.

Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.

Except the NSA just released one of Snowden's emails questioning the legality of things one or two months ago. They then claimed that was the "only" email they had from him. Now they are saying they have lots but can't release them for some reason. So, the NSA has been caught lying to you yet again and you continue to look the other way. When are you going to pull your head out of your ass?

Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.

Ok, I'll stipulate that he claims he wrote them.

All this while intending to make the claim that he was a "whistle blower" on the US? And he forget the whistle he claims to have blown, repeatedly, while there? That doesn't wash.

I honestly and sincerely don't even see it as related. He may not even anticipated that someone would challenge. He was seeking to establish beyond credible doubt that the NSA was doing XYZ. That is "the story" he was looking to tell. That someone would try to argue that a big part of the story would be "hey, can you prove you tried to tell someone inside, first" possibly didn't even enter into his mind.

In the big picture, it doesn't even matter. What matters is what the NSA was doing, not how vigorously Snowden tried to change it from within first.

Regardless of how important this particular detail is to you, its at best a tangential detail to the main story.

Its just a small minded distraction to try and divert attention from the main story. Like obsessing over Julian Assange's significant personal flaws instead of focusing on the actual wiki leaks leaks.

Maybe because they don't exist?

That doesn't fly within this thread of the sub-argument.

You'd stipulated they DID exist and contained the NSA's response that they were legal. You can't now argue that maybe they didn't exist, at least not within this sub-thread.

Or they discuss classified programs that are still classified?

They could redact them. Even if they were just "walls of black ink", they would establish that they existed.

I expect that the NSA has done that in the proper forums for discussing classified matters: in meetings with the administration, in closed sessions of Congress, and before the courts in closed hearings.

You are contorting like an acrobat. You are arguing that "if they exist, the NSA is rightfully keeping them secret, therefore we should assume Snowden is lying about their existence, and that they don't exist". That's not even coherent.

Seems to me then, its perfectly reasonable to accept Snowden's claim they exist.

Which "general consensus" is that?

Lets see:the 5 member Privacy and Civil liberties Oversight Board created by Congress ruled them illegal.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled them illegal.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled them illegal.

Owing to my prior service in uniform and long standing experience in both private and public sector information security, I have a very good idea of why he isn't in possession of those emails. I'm fairly certain you have the same understanding, but you've elected to take the disingenuous route of raising this rather ridiculous question, being secure in your belief the populace at large doesn't have the same benefit of experience. I'll ask the same question I asked you in my last reply: what do you presently

To be perfectly clear, Snowden is actually in possession of some emails. That much has been known for some time. You know exactly what I'm talking about when I speak to the probability that he is in possession of copies of all his correspondence (extremely low), especially copies which could be authenticated via certain means. Again, you know exactly what I'm talking about here, and you're simply being disingenuous.

First off, lets begin with this: The Freedom of Information Act is NOT a fishing lure. It is not designed to request all the emails of a certain employee, nor should it. The FOIA is designed for targeted requests for specific information, not blanket demands so conspiracy theorists can try to dig for "evidence." The NSA should have ignored this FOIA act or pointed that out.

A FOIA request can be made for any agency record. You can also specify the format in which you wish to receive the records. You should be aware that the FOIA does not require agencies to do research for you, to analyze data, to answer written questions, or to create records in response to a request.

Furthermore, captain fuckface, let me explain how this shit works....

Second off, this story (and the multitude of Greenwald/Snowden cult of personality reposters) is missing the most important thing in the NSA's response, the last sentence:

For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.

That's the real story here. The FOIA request was trying to show that Snowden tried to warn the NSA about abuses but they ignored it, the fake story Greenwald and Matthew Keys are trying to push is that the NSA is somehow hiding it, the real story is that Snowden, Libtard hero, never even tried to whistleblow.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

An FOIA request is made which would either prove, or disprove something in question. In this case they were trying to prove Snowden had attempted to run these abuses up the chain. NSA challenges the FOIA request, and will not produce evidence that they have stated they are in possession of. Remember, if the NSA had done no wrong, the e-mails would prove this.

Now please go fuck yourself straight to the fiery gates of hell. The US and the rest of the civilized world would do wonders without spineless cowards and traitors of your ilk. You are useful for nothing more than pig food.

Federal regulations require e-mail monitoring to prevent leaks. He had access to systems that had no such monitoring.Further, it is now a known fact that the NSA was monitoring and storing all digital communications they could get their hands on.

Failure to produce data he claims (and they don't deny) they had, is incriminating enough.

You are absolutely correct but they know perfectly well it would just be followed up with the obvious and very specific request for "All e-mails from Edward Snowden with subject matter relating to the legality of the internet monitoring and cellular meta data gathering activities conducted by the NSA".

And then they'd be right back here were they are now. Having to make the same excuse, which might have some legitimacy as those mails probably are evidence in an on going criminal investigation of Snowden; all

Second off, this story (and the multitude of Greenwald/Snowden cult of personality reposters) is missing the most important thing in the NSA's response, the last sentence:

“For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.”

You'd have a great point if there were any reason we could trust the NSA. They could be lying outright, or they could be doing it the DC way, which is telling the truth in a misleading way, by overlooking the fact that he approached them in person about it instead of in written form, which I certainly would have, as I'd be nervous as shit about writing an email like that.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

He gave up his girlfriend and cushy job, he exposed clear evidence of violation of international treaties and the US Constitution by the world's dominant superpower, and then he endured being stuck in the Moscow Airport (there isn't enough Prozac in the world to make this OK) and is now stuck in Russia, which I assure you, is a severe downgrade from Hawaii. There's nothing cowardly about all that.

Edward Snowdon understood what would happen if he where to seriously try and push the issue internally.

The global surveillance network was a core NSA policy authorized at the highest levels. This was not simply some rouge agent or rouge department. Previous individuals have attempted to raise concerns internally and failed to achieve any change underlying policy. The NSA has even deliberately lied to congress on the matter.

As a contractor, he has no employment rights. Making noise would likely get his security clearance revoked and his employer finding someone else who doesn't have a moral problem with surveillance. It would also likely get himself added to the NSA watchlist.

As a pragmatist, his decision to publicly release records has successfully created enough political pressure for congress to at least review the NSA's policies. A cowardly little shit who was willing to risk everything on a high risk venture, with a very strong possibility of getting caught, that takes some major balls from someone who knows exactly what the NSA is capable of.

I see your point that FOIA was designed for specific requests. But in this case the question is if he ever reported this to superiors. It could have been in person, but he probably would have covered himself and sent it in email. The only way to see if he ever sent emails reporting the issues is to see all emails. That request would mean a full release of his emails.

Of course, the reality is that this would have been one or two carefully crated emails. Taking 2-4 emails out of an archive with a dail

... the real story is that Snowden, Libtard hero, never even tried to whistleblow.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

He did something he knew would raise the ire of the government to the point they would want to capture him and torture him, dooming himself to a life on the run for the rest of his days. Yeah, he's a real yellow-belly.